PDA

View Full Version : Super brilliant idea to fix the hacking



Chronz
04-21-2016, 07:54 PM
I have no complaints about it, frankly it doesn't really work even when the math adds up but people really hate watching 3 hour games so i have found the solution.

Make it so the team gets to choose which player receives the foul. Think Pop hacks if it means that Kawhi gets in foul trouble? And give the player 3 free throws to make 2.

How about making intentional fouls worth 2 regular fouls.

kdspurman
04-21-2016, 08:00 PM
I came in thinking you meant the PSD security breach lol

DboneG
04-21-2016, 08:03 PM
I have no complaints about it, frankly it doesn't really work even when the math adds up but people really hate watching 3 hour games so i have found the solution.

Make it so the team gets to choose which player receives the foul. Think Pop hacks if it means that Kawhi gets in foul trouble? And give the player 3 free throws to make 2.

How about making intentional fouls worth 2 regular fouls.



You may be on to something. Someone should try and submit the ideas to the NBA committee. Because, they don't have any good ideas as of yet.

ghettosean
04-21-2016, 08:09 PM
I came in thinking you meant the PSD security breach lol

Lol... I thought the same!!!

TrueFan420
04-21-2016, 08:25 PM
I came in thinking you meant the PSD security breach lol

Lol I did too

Sofnr
04-21-2016, 08:27 PM
I assumed this thread was about the Cardinals.

Chronz
04-21-2016, 09:12 PM
lol, dominate deception titles

blahblahyoutoo
04-21-2016, 09:18 PM
do not like.
who's going to determine if the foul is intentional?

what about the situations where you are forced to foul (and it's not DJ, drummond or dwight) in a close game? do you want to penalize that strategy too?

want to fix the intentional fouls? how about... hitting your free throws? you know, a basketball fundamental?

AllBall
04-21-2016, 09:31 PM
Hmm....correct me if I'm wrong here. If a player is out of bounds (NOT on an inbound the ball play) and he gets fouled, isn't that technical? Why doesn't the to be hacked player just stay out of bounds then?

AllBall
04-21-2016, 09:31 PM
Hmm....correct me if I'm wrong here. If a player is out of bounds (NOT on an inbound the ball play) and he gets fouled, isn't that technical? If so, why doesn't the to be hacked player just stay out of bounds then?

Chronz
04-21-2016, 09:43 PM
do not like.
who's going to determine if the foul is intentional?

what about the situations where you are forced to foul (and it's not DJ, drummond or dwight) in a close game? do you want to penalize that strategy too?

want to fix the intentional fouls? how about... hitting your free throws? you know, a basketball fundamental?


Well we dont need the rule for the final 2 minutes, those off the ball fouls are illegal then. Im all for allowing them to foul guys who have the ball in order to get to the line.

And dude, FT shooting has been consistent for...... I want to say 5 decades now, its a part of the game at this point. Some guys just cant learn and the league has made so many changes that altered basketball fundamentals (especially with palming/dribbling for guards) but they did so for the growth of the game.

Chronz
04-21-2016, 09:46 PM
Hmm....correct me if I'm wrong here. If a player is out of bounds (NOT on an inbound the ball play) and he gets fouled, isn't that technical? If so, why doesn't the to be hacked player just stay out of bounds then?
Nah its legal, I used to laugh when the commentators would bring up the idea that he should run up the arena to get away from the foul.

AllBall
04-21-2016, 10:07 PM
Nah its legal, I used to laugh when the commentators would bring up the idea that he should run up the arena to get away from the foul.

Actually, that works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTCZ3imIyyg

blahblahyoutoo
04-21-2016, 11:40 PM
Well we dont need the rule for the final 2 minutes, those off the ball fouls are illegal then. Im all for allowing them to foul guys who have the ball in order to get to the line.

And dude, FT shooting has been consistent for...... I want to say 5 decades now, its a part of the game at this point. Some guys just cant learn and the league has made so many changes that altered basketball fundamentals (especially with palming/dribbling for guards) but they did so for the growth of the game.

ok, lets say a player gets frustrated at another (both away from the ball), tempers flare and one shoves/elbows/etc. the other.
is that a flagrant, technical, or intentional foul that leads to 3 shots as in your proposal?

Kyben36
04-22-2016, 12:12 AM
I am still 100% firm you have to make your FTS or you cant be on the court, its not that hard, and its not like you paid to put a ball in the hoop.
\

Wrigheyes4MVP
04-22-2016, 04:44 PM
I am still 100% firm you have to make your FTS or you cant be on the court, its not that hard, and its not like you paid to put a ball in the hoop.
\

I agree, but I still don't think you should be able to foul someone away from the ball. My solution is simple. If you foul someone away from the ball, the person with the ball at that moment is the one who shoots the freethrows. So if hack Howard, but Harden is the one with the ball in his hands, then Harden goes to the line.

Shammyguy3
04-22-2016, 04:49 PM
I agree, but I still don't think you should be able to foul someone away from the ball. My solution is simple. If you foul someone away from the ball, the person with the ball at that moment is the one who shoots the freethrows. So if hack Howard, but Harden is the one with the ball in his hands, then Harden goes to the line.

That's probably the easiest solution possible without making the game feel too gimmicky in the sense of "Okay we fouled you, now you guys get to pick someone to shoot free throws." We already kinda have that in technical fouls, which I'm okay for. But during an actual possession where a foul has occurred I like your idea the best.


Something that's very gimmicky that I don't think I've heard suggested on this site is this: whoever gets fouled must shoot the free throw(s). The player gets two shots to score on free throw, of which the free throw is worth two points. So, if they make it the first time the team gets two points and no more free throws occur. If they miss the first one, but make the second one it still counts as two points.


:shrug:

mrblisterdundee
04-22-2016, 05:47 PM
Or make your free throws, and don't expect the entire league to change because of your weakness.

Scoots
04-22-2016, 05:57 PM
I agree, but I still don't think you should be able to foul someone away from the ball. My solution is simple. If you foul someone away from the ball, the person with the ball at that moment is the one who shoots the freethrows. So if hack Howard, but Harden is the one with the ball in his hands, then Harden goes to the line.

So if Curry has the ball (#1 FT% in the NBA) and Draymond can flop into a foul Curry gets to shoot? If Curry has the ball and Iguodala gets a call for being grabbed coming off a screen Curry gets to shoot? It seems to me that rule would encourage teams to have their best FT shooters handle the ball even more during the whole game when all off the ball fouls result in Curry shooting.

Scoots
04-22-2016, 06:07 PM
There was another long thread about this and I think what we came up with was this:

* "Intentional" is meaningless and can't be reasonably officiated.
* Off-the-ball fouls before the last 2 minutes are the only issue and have to do only with bad FT shooters because it's a tiny percentage play advantage.
* Nobody reasonable wants to make it so it's okay for players to not be able to shoot FTs.

The idea:
After the 5th off-the ball foul in the game the fouled player gets to shoot 3 FTs to make a max of 2. The 3 to make 2 is an old NBA rule that was done away with 30 years ago ... the difference here is that it would ONLY apply to off-the-ball fouls, and only after the 5th such foul.

So each coach would get to strategically have 4 chances to stop play or whatever when such things come up that are not hack-a events. And after that the chances of even bad FT shooters missing enough to make it a percentage play are gone since now they get 3 tries to make 2.

The bad FT shooters would STILL HAVE TO MAKE FTs ... the penalty is just reduced by enough to make opposing coaches choose not to do it.

It's simple, it actually comes from the NBA's own history, and it solves the problem without totally messing up existing mid and late game strategies.

Chronz
04-22-2016, 06:23 PM
That's probably the easiest solution possible without making the game feel too gimmicky in the sense of "Okay we fouled you, now you guys get to pick someone to shoot free throws." We already kinda have that in technical fouls, which I'm okay for. But during an actual possession where a foul has occurred I like your idea the best.


Something that's very gimmicky that I don't think I've heard suggested on this site is this: whoever gets fouled must shoot the free throw(s). The player gets two shots to score on free throw, of which the free throw is worth two points. So, if they make it the first time the team gets two points and no more free throws occur. If they miss the first one, but make the second one it still counts as two points.


:shrug:
That's a great idea. Would speed up the process of hacking and change the percentages

blahblahyoutoo
04-22-2016, 08:19 PM
I agree, but I still don't think you should be able to foul someone away from the ball. My solution is simple. If you foul someone away from the ball, the person with the ball at that moment is the one who shoots the freethrows. So if hack Howard, but Harden is the one with the ball in his hands, then Harden goes to the line.

like this marginally better than the OP's.

blahblahyoutoo
04-22-2016, 08:22 PM
There was another long thread about this and I think what we came up with was this:

* "Intentional" is meaningless and can't be reasonably officiated.
* Off-the-ball fouls before the last 2 minutes are the only issue and have to do only with bad FT shooters because it's a tiny percentage play advantage.
* Nobody reasonable wants to make it so it's okay for players to not be able to shoot FTs.

The idea:
After the 5th off-the ball foul in the game the fouled player gets to shoot 3 FTs to make a max of 2. The 3 to make 2 is an old NBA rule that was done away with 30 years ago ... the difference here is that it would ONLY apply to off-the-ball fouls, and only after the 5th such foul.

So each coach would get to strategically have 4 chances to stop play or whatever when such things come up that are not hack-a events. And after that the chances of even bad FT shooters missing enough to make it a percentage play are gone since now they get 3 tries to make 2.

The bad FT shooters would STILL HAVE TO MAKE FTs ... the penalty is just reduced by enough to make opposing coaches choose not to do it.

It's simple, it actually comes from the NBA's own history, and it solves the problem without totally messing up existing mid and late game strategies.

potentially shooting 3x extends the game further, if we're worried about the pace/duration of the game.

Scoots
04-22-2016, 08:34 PM
potentially shooting 3x extends the game further, if we're worried about the pace/duration of the game.
But only after the 5th off the ball foul and the 3 attempts would be enough to keep coaches from doing it.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Saddletramp
04-22-2016, 08:38 PM
You know what would stop this? The off the ball player that gets fouled gets one free throw and his team gets the ball back. Basically, if it's Howard getting fouled off the ball, he'd get one free throw and the Rockets would get the ball back. Not sure if the 24 second clock would need to be unchanged, sent to 14 seconds if it's below 14 seconds or restarted.

Only way I can see the defense taking advantage of this is if they need to regroup/reset their defense and just foul a bad ft shooter.

Everything else seems too convoluted.

Lakers + Giants
04-22-2016, 08:46 PM
My favorite "fix" was allowing the hack a shaq to be used in the last 2 mins, instead of the first 46. IMO that's the best fix.

Scoots
04-22-2016, 09:48 PM
You know what would stop this? The off the ball player that gets fouled gets one free throw and his team gets the ball back. Basically, if it's Howard getting fouled off the ball, he'd get one free throw and the Rockets would get the ball back. Not sure if the 24 second clock would need to be unchanged, sent to 14 seconds if it's below 14 seconds or restarted.

Only way I can see the defense taking advantage of this is if they need to regroup/reset their defense and just foul a bad ft shooter.

Everything else seems too convoluted.

That's a MAJOR change. That means an off-the-ball foul, including unintentional ones could result in a made free throw and a made 3 rather than right now a maximum of 2 points, a stopped clock, and the ball back. The vast majority of intentional fouls are not hack-a but to stop the clock ... with this one rule change you completely change the end of close games.

Scoots
04-22-2016, 09:48 PM
My favorite "fix" was allowing the hack a shaq to be used in the last 2 mins, instead of the first 46. IMO that's the best fix.

But how do you dis-allow it in the first 46?

Saddletramp
04-22-2016, 10:01 PM
That's a MAJOR change. That means an off-the-ball foul, including unintentional ones could result in a made free throw and a made 3 rather than right now a maximum of 2 points, a stopped clock, and the ball back. The vast majority of intentional fouls are not hack-a but to stop the clock ... with this one rule change you completely change the end of close games.

Then tell people to stop working around the rules and exploiting loopholes. Final two minutes would revert back to the way they do it now.

Scoots
04-22-2016, 11:32 PM
Then tell people to stop working around the rules and exploiting loopholes. Final two minutes would revert back to the way they do it now.
The fouling to stop the clock has been around pretty much from the beginning. I doubt they make such a drastic change now. The purpose is to stop the hacka not to fundamentally change the game.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Saddletramp
04-23-2016, 02:37 AM
The fouling to stop the clock has been around pretty much from the beginning. I doubt they make such a drastic change now. The purpose is to stop the hacka not to fundamentally change the game.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Final two minutes would revert back to the way they do it now.

warfelg
04-23-2016, 11:44 AM
But how do you dis-allow it in the first 46?

My solution is simply hugging the guy and patting his back far away from the play doesn't get called.

Not encouraging hard fouls but when KJ McDaniels comes in and hugs Drummond as the ball is passed in 5 times in 35 seconds to foul out is pathetic.

Either that or these hack-a-blank fouls away from ball are just ball OB even in the bonus and double bonus. No shots.

Because if it becomes it's only shots when that guy has the ball you run the risk of him scoring on you.

Scoots
04-23-2016, 12:18 PM
Final two minutes would revert back to the way they do it now.

That still leaves a lot of time out ... like the end of quarters, the first half, and the time before the last 2 minutes. I still think it's too big a change. All we need to do is reduce the odds a tiny amount to swing the practice out of favor.

Scoots
04-23-2016, 12:21 PM
My solution is simply hugging the guy and patting his back far away from the play doesn't get called.

Not encouraging hard fouls but when KJ McDaniels comes in and hugs Drummond as the ball is passed in 5 times in 35 seconds to foul out is pathetic.

Either that or these hack-a-blank fouls away from ball are just ball OB even in the bonus and double bonus. No shots.

Because if it becomes it's only shots when that guy has the ball you run the risk of him scoring on you.

Doing away with off the ball fouls would just mean that a team's best offensive player without the ball will just get killed as that then becomes the best strategy.

Side out of bounds on an off-the-ball foul again makes drastic changes to late game strategy and not just discourages hacka.

warfelg
04-23-2016, 12:38 PM
Doing away with off the ball fouls would just mean that a team's best offensive player without the ball will just get killed as that then becomes the best strategy.

Side out of bounds on an off-the-ball foul again makes drastic changes to late game strategy and not just discourages hacka.

I'm not saying do away with off ball fouls. But the stupid waiving to the ref and tapping a guy on the back shouldn't be called. It's stupid.

Like I said, look no further than KJ hugging Drummond 5 times in a 35 second span to foul out and force him to the line every time someone touches him. I'm sorry in my eyes, that's not a foul. Those shouldn't have been called.

Now am I saying that they need to stick out the leg or table top a guy to get the call? No. But seeing this hugs and taps for the sake of getting a call.

Also I was saying for outside the 2-minute marks (I think it should be for each quarter).

Look something has got to be done about it. No solution will be perfect. But some will be better than others. I think finding a way to do away with ones like this:
http://youtu.be/YJix5voSkac
Is where we need to start.

Because that's stupid. It's not basketball. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Redrum187
04-23-2016, 12:39 PM
I have a solution:

Pay these guys millions of dollars to jack up thousands of free throws for practice... =/

Home teams should invite their fans to the stadium for free to simulate the crowd whilst they practice them. Hell, offer the fans a free beer if they come and boo/cheer while the player is practicing free throws. They will get a lot of fans to come out and support their team. Buying a crowd of 10-20k people a beer is relatively cheap to them anyways.

PowerHouse
04-23-2016, 12:49 PM
Just your second idea of giving three to make two should be enough to work. That'll make every coach think twice about the hacking, even if its DJ.

Scoots
04-23-2016, 01:45 PM
I'm not saying do away with off ball fouls. But the stupid waiving to the ref and tapping a guy on the back shouldn't be called. It's stupid.

Like I said, look no further than KJ hugging Drummond 5 times in a 35 second span to foul out and force him to the line every time someone touches him. I'm sorry in my eyes, that's not a foul. Those shouldn't have been called.

Now am I saying that they need to stick out the leg or table top a guy to get the call? No. But seeing this hugs and taps for the sake of getting a call.

Also I was saying for outside the 2-minute marks (I think it should be for each quarter).

Look something has got to be done about it. No solution will be perfect. But some will be better than others. I think finding a way to do away with ones like this:
http://youtu.be/YJix5voSkac
Is where we need to start.

Because that's stupid. It's not basketball. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Telling the ref you are going to foul someone to stop the clock and then tapping or hugging them is fine with me as it's far more civilized than hammering them like Draymond did, and the hammering happens because you need to be sure the refs sees the foul.

The issue is really only with off-the-ball fouls on bad free throw shooters as a strategy so all we need to do is very slightly reduce the payout on that move. I still think the best solution is for off-the-ball fouls to be 3 to make 2 after the 5th off-the-ball foul. It still allows all the non-hacka tactics while reducing the payoff to the point coaches will never choose choose hacka.

Chronz
04-23-2016, 04:53 PM
As much as i like the beer idea. Giving them 3 to make 2 anytime a player is intentionally fouled ( maybe just on the perimeter) is Prolly the best simple idea.

Scoots
04-23-2016, 06:55 PM
As much as i like the beer idea. Giving them 3 to make 2 anytime a player is intentionally fouled ( maybe just on the perimeter) is Prolly the best simple idea.

You can't officiate intent, so it's just got to be off-the-ball fouls. And the 3 to make 2 coming in after the 5th such foul matches up with the current in-the-bonus scheme there is now, it's just a 2nd kind of bonus.

Saddletramp
04-23-2016, 08:21 PM
The beer thing is really dumb (no offense) because you'd have to make sure the arena isn't already rented (for other sports or concerts) and most teams (I think) do most of their practicing at practice facilities (where I'm not sure how many bleachers, if any are present, although I honestly don't know). Also, you have to pay staff to distribute the beer and clean up. And security. The costs will add up.

Saddletramp
04-23-2016, 08:26 PM
That still leaves a lot of time out ... like the end of quarters, the first half, and the time before the last 2 minutes. I still think it's too big a change. All we need to do is reduce the odds a tiny amount to swing the practice out of favor.

I don't like teams fouling guys at the end of quarters so they can get the last possession. Final two minutes of each quarter goes to the "best ft shooter" and before the last two minutes? 1 free throw and the ball back. Basically a technical. Because you shouldn't foul off the ball. In fact, you should never try to foul, period. You're supposed to be penalized for fouling; There'll be less off the ball fouls then.

KnickNyKnick
04-23-2016, 08:30 PM
how about you let the team who is fouled choose who gets to shoot the FT's?

Scoots
04-23-2016, 08:45 PM
I don't like teams fouling guys at the end of quarters so they can get the last possession. Final two minutes of each quarter goes to the "best ft shooter" and before the last two minutes? 1 free throw and the ball back. Basically a technical. Because you shouldn't foul off the ball. In fact, you should never try to foul, period. You're supposed to be penalized for fouling; There'll be less off the ball fouls then.

While I kind of agree, there is NO WAY the NBA does that drastic a change to get rid of hacka.

How about a different proposal ... add to the CBA language that every missed FT costs $100 to the player who misses it and the money collected is split by all of the players in the NBA at the end of the season. That would both encourage players to get better at shooting FTs and maybe cut down on their efforts to get fouled for the sake of getting fouled rather than scoring the ball which is the point of the game right? Not to get fouled?

Scoots
04-23-2016, 08:49 PM
how about you let the team who is fouled choose who gets to shoot the FT's?

Because then we'd just see Curry/Paul/Durant/Dirk/Lillard etc in a parade to the line, and their scoring averages would explode to the point that there would have to be division in the record books for that point in time.

Can you imagine how pissed Harden would be if someone else got to take all those FTs?

Saddletramp
04-23-2016, 09:58 PM
While I kind of agree, there is NO WAY the NBA does that drastic a change to get rid of hacka.

How about a different proposal ... add to the CBA language that every missed FT costs $100 to the player who misses it and the money collected is split by all of the players in the NBA at the end of the season. That would both encourage players to get better at shooting FTs and maybe cut down on their efforts to get fouled for the sake of getting fouled rather than scoring the ball which is the point of the game right? Not to get fouled?

But the guys getting hacked aren't trying to get fouled.


Because then we'd just see Curry/Paul/Durant/Dirk/Lillard etc in a parade to the line, and their scoring averages would explode to the point that there would have to be division in the record books for that point in time.

Can you imagine how pissed Harden would be if someone else got to take all those FTs?

He wouldn't care.

Scoots
04-23-2016, 10:30 PM
But the guys getting hacked aren't trying to get fouled.

Yes, but some players are. Actually a lot of them are.


He wouldn't care.

You don't think he'd care if his scoring average dropped almost 10 points a game? I bet he'd care a LOT.

Chronz
04-23-2016, 11:21 PM
You can't officiate intent, so it's just got to be off-the-ball fouls. And the 3 to make 2 coming in after the 5th such foul matches up with the current in-the-bonus scheme there is now, it's just a 2nd kind of bonus.
They are called intentional fouls for a reason tho. Its not like anyone would foul dj that far away from the rim for no reason. Besides, i believe refs already consider intent.

If they counter the rule simply by running into him in pnr situations then I'll take that trade off. Usually when teams are forced into hacking if the clips could simply run their offense away from him they would cut those hacks out.

I would hate to see them change too much of the game just to be all inclusive. Teams shouldn't be punished too severely for fouls that aren't intentional

Chronz
04-23-2016, 11:26 PM
how about you let the team who is fouled choose who gets to shoot the FT's?
In intentional situations that would surely end hacking but thats eliminating the strategy entirely which is abit extreme but maybe what the league wants.

The other problem you face is how do you govern regular fouls? Would hate to see all those fts given to the wrong player.

Chronz
04-23-2016, 11:29 PM
Yes, but some players are. Actually a lot of them are.



You don't think he'd care if his scoring average dropped almost 10 points a game? I bet he'd care a LOT.
He's talking about intentional hacks, the league doesn't want to cut down on fouling, just hackashaqs. Those are the guys who are never trying to get fouled but Teams are bypassing that to game the system. Those are what fans hate to see.

As for your second point, Harden is a good enough shooter that he would likely be the one taking them. Like back in the day when Kobe/Melo would take them ahead of superior shooters simply because of their stature

Saddletramp
04-23-2016, 11:34 PM
He's talking about intentional hacks, the league doesn't want to cut down on fouling, just hackashaqs. Those are the guys who are never trying to get fouled but Teams are bypassing that to game the system. Those are what fans hate to see.

As for your second point, Harden is a good enough shooter that he would likely be the one taking them. Like back in the day when Kobe/Melo would take them ahead of superior shooters simply because of their stature

Exactly and exactly. It's like you posted what I was going to post, just better.

Scoots
04-23-2016, 11:50 PM
They are called intentional fouls for a reason tho. Its not like anyone would foul dj that far away from the rim for no reason. Besides, i believe refs already consider intent.

If they counter the rule simply by running into him in pnr situations then I'll take that trade off. Usually when teams are forced into hacking if the clips could simply run their offense away from him they would cut those hacks out.

I would hate to see them change too much of the game just to be all inclusive. Teams shouldn't be punished too severely for fouls that aren't intentional

There are, as far as I can find, no rules based on intent. We can guess intent, but if it's based on guessing intent to get to the new rules then the system can be gamed where players start tripping into DJ and then it becomes about arguing whether the player intended to trip or not.

All I want to do is very slightly reduce the return for those fouls so allowing up to 4 using the rules as they are now and then still requiring whichever player is fouled to shoot FTs and make them to get point ... just get an extra change ONLY IF THEY MISS. That means the game is almost not changed at all.

Scoots
04-23-2016, 11:54 PM
He's talking about intentional hacks, the league doesn't want to cut down on fouling, just hackashaqs. Those are the guys who are never trying to get fouled but Teams are bypassing that to game the system. Those are what fans hate to see.

As for your second point, Harden is a good enough shooter that he would likely be the one taking them. Like back in the day when Kobe/Melo would take them ahead of superior shooters simply because of their stature

I understand, but that's not what he said, so I was just clarifying. Thanks.

My point on Harden was that IF he was not chosen to shoot FTs. For instance, what if Jamal Crawford joined the Rockets this off-season and that rule was in place, the percentage play (something Morey puts above everything else) would be to have Jamal shoot the FTs, and I think Harden would have a problem with that. The likelihood that he would have a problem with that would be a significant factor in his team choosing to have him shoot them ... he WANTS the points.

Scoots
04-23-2016, 11:57 PM
Exactly and exactly. It's like you posted what I was going to post, just better.

Of course in his previous post Chronz illustrated he saw the issue in the rule change proposed:


The other problem you face is how do you govern regular fouls? Would hate to see all those fts given to the wrong player.

At any rate ... I don't think the NBA will ever go for allowing another player to shoot FTs while the fouled player is still in the game.

Saddletramp
04-24-2016, 01:09 AM
I understand, but that's not what he said, so I was just clarifying. Thanks.

My point on Harden was that IF he was not chosen to shoot FTs. For instance, what if Jamal Crawford joined the Rockets this off-season and that rule was in place, the percentage play (something Morey puts above everything else) would be to have Jamal shoot the FTs, and I think Harden would have a problem with that. The likelihood that he would have a problem with that would be a significant factor in his team choosing to have him shoot them ... he WANTS the points.

Harden isn't Reddick at the line but he's good enough to take the extra FTs if he wants them. And he'll want them.

Scoots
04-24-2016, 01:21 AM
Harden isn't Reddick at the line but he's good enough to take the extra FTs if he wants them. And he'll want them.

And THAT was my point. I thought it would be funny if they were taken from him.

Shammyguy3
04-24-2016, 12:11 PM
As much as i like the beer idea. Giving them 3 to make 2 anytime a player is intentionally fouled ( maybe just on the perimeter) is Prolly the best simple idea.

If the intent is to get rid of the hack-a-shaq strategy as much as possible and speed up the game, then giving them two free throws to make one but have it be worth two points would actually be better and nearly just as simple

KnickNyKnick
04-25-2016, 12:38 AM
after a player is fouled 7-10 times in a game then the team can choose who shoots? :D Not sure what the league will do about hack-a-shack-a-rodman, but if its anywhere near trying to referee intent, then its just going to slow it more along with all these replays.

Chronz
04-25-2016, 10:17 AM
There are, as far as I can find, no rules based on intent. We can guess intent, but if it's based on guessing intent to get to the new rules then the system can be gamed where players start tripping into DJ and then it becomes about arguing whether the player intended to trip or not.
LOL, dude they are straight up hugging DJ from areas where hes not a threat to score, its not a guess if they were to somehow trip him from back there and thats all people are trying to get rid of. If all of sudden players start tripping every time then you simply assess the technical the way we can with other flops, intent is something the NBA always judges bro, its why flopping is shunned.


All I want to do is very slightly reduce the return for those fouls so allowing up to 4 using the rules as they are now and then still requiring whichever player is fouled to shoot FTs and make them to get point ... just get an extra change ONLY IF THEY MISS. That means the game is almost not changed at all.

Well what do you mean for "those fouls", sounds like you're judging intent also. And I dont know how many times it happens on average but cutting it down to 4 incidents doesn't change much IMO. Like the Blazers prolly hacked that many times intentionally last game. The reason I wouldn't like your rules is because it would come into effect (without judging intent) with plays outside of the scope of hack-a-shaq. Again, the league doesn't want to amend fouling, they want to get rid of intentionally fouling.

Chronz
04-25-2016, 10:22 AM
If the intent is to get rid of the hack-a-shaq strategy as much as possible and speed up the game, then giving them two free throws to make one but have it be worth two points would actually be better and nearly just as simple
Yeah, giving them 2 free throws and if they make one its worth 2 would definitely speed it up. We agree this would only be for intentionally fouling situations right. The only problem that would still exist are when teams begin to hide intentional fouls by hacking him when hes setting a pick but if thats the only problem then I'll take it.

People always ask us why dont we just use the rules we have in place for the final 2 minutes, only throughout the entire game and thats simply because the rules that govern off the ball fouls would influence the game in ways never intended. Would suck to see every off the ball foul turn into fts AND possession throughout an entire game. I honestly think refs ignore the same fouls in those 2 minutes because they dont want to use the foul rule for anything beyond intentionally hacking.

Scoots
04-25-2016, 10:59 AM
LOL, dude they are straight up hugging DJ from areas where hes not a threat to score, its not a guess if they were to somehow trip him from back there and thats all people are trying to get rid of. If all of sudden players start tripping every time then you simply assess the technical the way we can with other flops, intent is something the NBA always judges bro, its why flopping is shunned.

Well what do you mean for "those fouls", sounds like you're judging intent also. And I dont know how many times it happens on average but cutting it down to 4 incidents doesn't change much IMO. Like the Blazers prolly hacked that many times intentionally last game. The reason I wouldn't like your rules is because it would come into effect (without judging intent) with plays outside of the scope of hack-a-shaq. Again, the league doesn't want to amend fouling, they want to get rid of intentionally fouling.

There are no rules based on intent and none likely to be added, if you find a rule that does then I'll have learned something. By "those fouls" I meant off-the-ball fouls. The reason there are no changes for the first 4 off-the-ball fouls per team is so that it's only a problem if a team goes crazy with the off-the-ball fouls, and from what I've seen there are usually not 4 off-the-ball fouls in games where there is no hacka being employed.

Wrigheyes4MVP
04-25-2016, 03:25 PM
So if Curry has the ball (#1 FT% in the NBA) and Draymond can flop into a foul Curry gets to shoot? If Curry has the ball and Iguodala gets a call for being grabbed coming off a screen Curry gets to shoot? It seems to me that rule would encourage teams to have their best FT shooters handle the ball even more during the whole game when all off the ball fouls result in Curry shooting.

I don't view this as a big issue. This is for intentional fouls. Not easy for Draymond to simple flop and get the call. The refs just have to be compitent and not call a dumb flop away from the ball. You can also easily just put in the rule book that this rule only applies to intentional fouls and the ref has the power to make that determination. Its an easily enforced rule and will eliminate intentional fouls except for at the very end of the game. I don't see the issue.

Scoots
04-25-2016, 04:37 PM
I don't view this as a big issue. This is for intentional fouls. Not easy for Draymond to simple flop and get the call. The refs just have to be compitent and not call a dumb flop away from the ball. You can also easily just put in the rule book that this rule only applies to intentional fouls and the ref has the power to make that determination. Its an easily enforced rule and will eliminate intentional fouls except for at the very end of the game. I don't see the issue.

It's not easy to have refs determine intent. The NBA has worked to keep measuring intent out of the game rules. It looks like it would be easy on replays, but during the game the refs are watching hands and feet, not faces and body language.

eDush
04-25-2016, 04:47 PM
do not like.
who's going to determine if the foul is intentional?

what about the situations where you are forced to foul (and it's not DJ, drummond or dwight) in a close game? do you want to penalize that strategy too?

want to fix the intentional fouls? how about... hitting your free throws? you know, a basketball fundamental?

It's not just fundamental but mental since you have millions of people watching you while you shoot it and not everyone can handle the mental aspect of it which I don't blame as well. You won't understand the mental pressure unless you are in their shoes.

To eliminate hacking, they can pick their best ft guy on the court to shoot it for the last 5 minutes of the game since most teams would try to at that time as they will already be in the penalty and we want to see non stop fun as they go down to the wire - problem solved:) I should get paid for my ideas:nod:

eDush
04-25-2016, 04:58 PM
I don't view this as a big issue. This is for intentional fouls. Not easy for Draymond to simple flop and get the call. The refs just have to be compitent and not call a dumb flop away from the ball. You can also easily just put in the rule book that this rule only applies to intentional fouls and the ref has the power to make that determination. Its an easily enforced rule and will eliminate intentional fouls except for at the very end of the game. I don't see the issue.

It's not easy to have refs determine intent. The NBA has worked to keep measuring intent out of the game rules. It looks like it would be easy on replays, but during the game the refs are watching hands and feet, not faces and body language.Exactly Scoots :nod:

Scoots
04-26-2016, 01:15 AM
I was just wondering ... how many times this year did Detroit, LAC, and Rockets do hack-a themselves? If they are doing it their complaints really should fall on deaf ears.

rhymeratic
04-26-2016, 01:00 PM
You can't completely wipe it out the game but you can make some significant deterrents/limit it. At the end of the day its a skill that a player is responsible for developing 'ability to shoot free-throws'

I propose the following which takes elements from some ideas posted:

1. If the same player is fouled twice within the same period after a team is in the bonus "without another teammate being fouled in between", fouled team has the option of selecting a different player currently on the court to take the foul shots OR choose which player on the opposing team to assign the personal foul on.

I thought this through a little bit. Essentially let me run an example...

Cavs Tristian Thompson fouls Andre Drummond at 5mins left... he goes to the line twice.
Play ensues and Mozgov fouls Drummond again at 4minute mark... Detroit has the option to choose any player currently in action such as Reggie Jackson to take the shot. If they perfer Drummond to take the shot, they have the option to assign the foul to any player on the Cavs roster.

I'm struggling with anyone on the roster to assign the foul vs only active players on the court. The idea here is to put the team at risk of taking a signifcant player out of the game for example if Lebron was in foul trouble with 5 fouls... well he just got his 6th thus couldn't return to the game.

Chronz
04-26-2016, 02:37 PM
There are no rules based on intent and none likely to be added, if you find a rule that does then I'll have learned something. By "those fouls" I meant off-the-ball fouls. The reason there are no changes for the first 4 off-the-ball fouls per team is so that it's only a problem if a team goes crazy with the off-the-ball fouls, and from what I've seen there are usually not 4 off-the-ball fouls in games where there is no hacka being employed.
Well put, I suppose thats a good middle ground but a team would get punished for regular fouls once they get their 4 hacks, which would alter the way they fight through screens and might alter the game too much rather than simply augmenting the value of the free throw off intentional hacks.

As for intent, what do you call what they do for flopping and you really think they dont consider intent when reviewing flagrants? Agree to disagree on that one, it may not be in the language but it plays a role.

Chronz
04-26-2016, 03:22 PM
I was just wondering ... how many times this year did Detroit, LAC, and Rockets do hack-a themselves? If they are doing it their complaints really should fall on deaf ears.

I dont think they are complaining, IIRC, Doc is actually on the select group of people who oversee rule changes and I recall him not caring to change it but I could be wrong.

BoSox47
04-26-2016, 04:02 PM
Most brilliant way to prevent hacking is to practice your free throws!

SoulBrotha
04-26-2016, 04:56 PM
Most brilliant way to prevent hacking is to practice your free throws!

yes stop making excuses for these grown men

Scoots
04-26-2016, 08:35 PM
You can't completely wipe it out the game but you can make some significant deterrents/limit it. At the end of the day its a skill that a player is responsible for developing 'ability to shoot free-throws'

I propose the following which takes elements from some ideas posted:

1. If the same player is fouled twice within the same period after a team is in the bonus "without another teammate being fouled in between", fouled team has the option of selecting a different player currently on the court to take the foul shots OR choose which player on the opposing team to assign the personal foul on.

I thought this through a little bit. Essentially let me run an example...

Cavs Tristian Thompson fouls Andre Drummond at 5mins left... he goes to the line twice.
Play ensues and Mozgov fouls Drummond again at 4minute mark... Detroit has the option to choose any player currently in action such as Reggie Jackson to take the shot. If they perfer Drummond to take the shot, they have the option to assign the foul to any player on the Cavs roster.

I'm struggling with anyone on the roster to assign the foul vs only active players on the court. The idea here is to put the team at risk of taking a signifcant player out of the game for example if Lebron was in foul trouble with 5 fouls... well he just got his 6th thus couldn't return to the game.

So teams that have multiple bad FT shooters are still in trouble (the Warriors have 3 guys who have been hack-a victims, the Rockets at least 2)

Scoots
04-26-2016, 08:38 PM
Well put, I suppose thats a good middle ground but a team would get punished for regular fouls once they get their 4 hacks, which would alter the way they fight through screens and might alter the game too much rather than simply augmenting the value of the free throw off intentional hacks.

As for intent, what do you call what they do for flopping and you really think they dont consider intent when reviewing flagrants? Agree to disagree on that one, it may not be in the language but it plays a role.

Flopping is not an in-game rule, nor is it intent based ... it is merely saying a player's reaction is greater than the contract makes reasonable. Read the language of the flagrant rule. There is no intent in there.

Scoots
04-26-2016, 08:51 PM
Most brilliant way to prevent hacking is to practice your free throws!

There is that, but the NBA is certainly looking to keep the show in good shape and they don't care so much for tradition or fundamentals.

Chronz
04-28-2016, 11:03 AM
Flopping is not an in-game rule, nor is it intent based ... it is merely saying a player's reaction is greater than the contract makes reasonable. Read the language of the flagrant rule. There is no intent in there.

I suppose but isn't it sort of human nature to gauge intent ? Like the announcers always point out whether the guy made a play on the ball even though the rule book says nothing on that.

What do you mean its not intent based? You either intend to take a hit or you intend to fake onel.

Scoots
04-28-2016, 12:16 PM
I suppose but isn't it sort of human nature to gauge intent ? Like the announcers always point out whether the guy made a play on the ball even though the rule book says nothing on that.

What do you mean its not intent based? You either intend to take a hit or you intend to fake onel.

People see intent. Rules don't judge intent intentionally because judging intent is not consistent from person to person and the rules are supposed to have consistency so any two people would come to the same conclusion. There are never supposed to be questions. On the flagrant rule they use language like unnecessary and excessive which are judgements of the kind and severity of the contact, but they disregard intent even though announcers keep bringing it up like it matters.

JasonJohnHorn
04-30-2016, 07:15 PM
I think the best way to fix the hacking thing is to hire shooting coaches for each team and get the big guys to start hitting free throws at 60% at least.

Scoots
04-30-2016, 08:09 PM
I think the best way to fix the hacking thing is to hire shooting coaches for each team and get the big guys to start hitting free throws at 60% at least.

Short of the NBA instituting a rule about bad FT shooters not being allowed to play it's still going to happen